Print Friendly and PDF

Why Mammograms Are a Harmful Waste of Time & Money

Christina Sarich
by
December 11th, 2013
Updated 12/11/2013 at 1:50 am
Pin It

breast cancer blocks 263x164 Why Mammograms Are a Harmful Waste of Time & MoneyMillions of women are subjected to ionizing radiation every year when we get mammograms at the directive of our health care providers. Radiation risks might be worth it if actual cancerous tumors were detected by mammograms, but a Swedish study involving over 60,000 women pointed out recently that 70% of all detected ‘tumors’ weren’t tumors at all, but false positives that led to invasive biopsies. Up to 80 % of all positive mammograms turn up without a shred of cancer after the biopsy, as well.

Furthermore, mammogram screening increases your risk of cancer. Just four breast films (the usual for one session) exposes a woman to 1 rad (radiation absorbed dose) about 1000 times more than a chest X-ray. If cancer is present, the extreme compression during a mammogram can help cancerous cells to spread (Lancet, 11992; 3440:122). Some doctors in the medical community, including, Dr. John W. Gofman, an authority on the health effects of ionizing radiation, estimates that 75% of breast cancer could be prevented by avoiding or minimizing exposure to ionizing radiation. Dr. Gofman goes so far as to say that medical radiation may even be a primary cause for numerous cancers, including breast cancer.

In an interview conducted with the doctor back in 1994, he said:

“The human experimentation that has been done is bad, and it’s good that that’s being cleared away. But for 25 years the DOE (Department of Health) has not shown any concern for the health of Americans. Their concern has been for the health of the DOE. Their falsehoods concerning the hazards of ionizing radiation have put not thousands of people at risk, not millions of people, but billions of people.”

Aside from the obvious health risks, since no radiation exposure is actually ‘safe,’ there are the inflated costs of breast-cancer detection via mammography. Prices range anywhere from several hundred dollars to almost $3000, with many insurance companies refusing to pay the majorities of the cost of the ‘detection.’ This does not include the cost of biopsy, and later, the chemo and further radiation treatments that will be prescribed to women who have been found to have breast cancer, likely due to radiation exposure.

Read: 5 Breast Cancer Prevention Tips

One study involving 40,000 women screened in Norway found that for every 2,500 women being screened, one death stemming from breast cancer would be prevented, while 6-10 women would be treated for a non-threatening cancer which would never actually cause symptoms. The researchers estimated that between 1,169 and 1,148 were over-diagnosed and received unnecessary treatment. This means unnecessary exposure to radiation. Similarly, a study published in the well-respected Cancer journal describes how radiation treatments actually promote malignancy in cancer cells instead of eradication.

Finally, breast cancer can be treated or avoided with changes in diet, exercise, lifestyle, doses of sunshine, and nutritional supplements. People have been beating cancer with nutrition with supplements like turmeric and Omega 3 fatty-acids for as long as anyone can remember. Health-damaging radiation as both a screening procedure and a ‘cure’ are archaic and brutal as well as costly and unnecessary.

Additional Sources:

NaturalNews.com/010886

From around the web:

  • Ismur

    The many fallacies of mammography are comprehensively described in the e-book “The Mammogram Myth: The Independent Investigation Of Mammography The Medical Profession Doesn’t Want You To Know About” by Rolf Hefti. Women have been misguided by the medical establishment for decades. Most derive no benefit from this test, many get seriously injured though.

  • WakeUpSleepyheadzzz

    Thank you for reporting on radiation from mammograms.

    Dr. Samuel Epstein has been cautioning against mammograms for years.

    Ironically, if something is detected on a mammogram, you are then sent for an ultrasound.

    Ultrasounds have zero radiation and are give a far clearer picture than a mammogram.

    Mammograms should be banned, imho.

    As it is, people are getting enough radiation exposure in the air, rain, water, etc.

    Especially since Japan’s nuclear meltdowns, which blanketed the U.S. with radiation.

    See this plume map showing where radiation from Japan’s nuclear meltdowns went.
    Notice how much the U.S. and Canada got.

    …youtube.com/watch?v=yuUYUJwNmag
    Also, a highly recommended site called ENENEWS has so much excellent information on this.